tv [untitled] August 12, 2010 10:00am-10:30am PST
>> hello, my name is mike from the conservation director with the golden state audio bonn society and i'm here to present oral comments on behalf of the society, written comments will follow. one of the things i want to start with. we'll hear a lot of comments about this process about overall support for the project and i would ask the commissioner and redevelopment agency to always at this point just remember that we need a good environmental impact report. and concerns about the eir do not reflect opposition necessarily to the project, but i also don't want to see what's happened to some of the other projects that have been before the city recently where the push for jobs and development while justified have outweighed the environmental concerns and creation of an adequate e.i.r. if an adequate e.i.r. is produced right now, we can get to creating those jobs and improving housing quicker. if you compromise and produce inadequate e.i.r., then it's going to lead to additional
conflicts and delays that aren't necessary. i would ask you to take a hard look and not just be pushed by the politics and the money to push through an e.i.r. that's inadequate at this point. san francisco's made some recent positive gains for the environment. particularly the mayor's recent proposed legislation to improve energy efficiency on buildings and supervisor's proposal to ban plastic bags in thecyy. these are both good benefits for san francisco. and continue i think a history of trying to attend to environmental matters. but one constant that's been missing from the city has been protection of wildlife and habitats. it's always a secondary or tertiary consideration in any of these. and the e.i.r. should address those. the e.i.r. is adequate in saying that the habitat, particularly here on the island, has been
compromised. there are others out there. offshore eo grass. and each of those will suffer impacts because of the proposed project. the e.i.r. concedes these but says each is less than significant. we would ask that the e.i.r. look at the written comments we propose and also ask itself whether the mitigations proposed really reduce it to a less than significant impact. we understand if it were to find there were significant impact that had economic impacts for the project overall, again we are talking about the sufficiency of the e.i.r. and sufficiency of the review. we ask the planning department and the commission ultimately not be compromised by pushes to push the project through and result in inadequate descriptions of the impacts and inadequate mitigations. of particular concern to the audubon society are the impacts, the unavoidable impacts to birds. the first and easiest one to identify is the massive increase
in population on the island itself. there is no doubt by increasing the population overall -- [bell] >> thank you for your time. >> good morning. my name is kate kelly. kelley, an i represent the sierra club, chapter director for the local chapter of the sierra club. first of all i want to say that we support development on treasure island. we are not opposed to development on the island, but we want to make sure that the development is the proper development so-so important. we have some serious concerns about the transportation plan, about the habitat preservation, about air quality issues. and impacts on climate change as well as many other issues. our request today, i'll be very brief, is that you please consider, we respect fully request a two-week extension on
the public comment period for the draft e.i.r. it's a very long and complicated document and we along with many other organizations who have interests in this development are not a staff driven organization. we don't have large staff the way that this city and the developers do. we rely on our volunteers. our volunteers have jobs. they have families. they have other commitments, travel commitments, and the short duration of this public comment period is inadequate for all of the issues that need to be addressed to be adequately addressed. we respectfully request a two-week extension on the public comment period. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> my name is holly berg. i also want to encourage the planning commission to extend the time for public comment.
it's vital that the san francisco community have adequate time to address their concerns and ask questions of you about the project. looking back at the hunters point development project, it received two months' worth of public comment. i think it's important that a project of this magnitude also gets the same amount of time for public comment. i think with the lessons learned from that project, we need to be able to give it the time it deserves. and, you know, it is important that the project move forward. it's the best project that it can be. one that benefits the community. thank you. >> thank you.
>> good morning, commissioners. my name is a patrick euni. we are in full support of this project because of the many positive aspects to it. community housing, open space, jobs, etc. what we like about this development is the very favorable ratio of open space to development. out of the 420 acres, i believe 300 acres are designed, designated open space. wetlands, parklands, and 408 acres of athletic fields. it is from that perspective i speak for the 40 acres of athletic sports fields. our organization has and represent thousands of kids in san francisco and the bay area through our own consideration, the boys and girls club, rhythm and blues c.y.o., ymca, etc. what the kids in san francisco are literally crying out for is
quality playing fields. two years ago our own organization was at a crossroads. we were on the verge of dying. so we took an enormous leap of faith and developed 15 acres of derelict lands that was a blight on the island of treasure island and convert it into 15 acres of pristine athletic fields at zero cost to the city of san francisco. but with an estimated cost to our own organization of $5 million. these fields have been enormous benefit to the kids of san francisco and the bay area. and indeed the disadvantaged kids on the island. in collaboration with tida and the city of san francisco we also pose add 10,000 square foot playing structures for the kids on the island. the fields have been the size of several -- site of several local regional international tournaments which has resulted in millions of dollars of revenue to the city of san francisco. in view of the enormous voluntary human and financial investment we have made on
behalf of our kids and the young adults in the bay area, and because of the region 2345al nature of our fields, we request the usage of the existing fields be interpreted as being client with the requirements of the trust. it is also our wish that when these -- from the 40 acre fields are complete, that the proposed 40-acre fields are complete that provisions be made or legislation drafted to keep amateur and volume--voluntary and community organizations be a permanent part of the proposed athletic fields. we are having -- having said all that we are in full support of the e.i.r. thank you very, very much for your time. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? >> good morning, commissioners. president miguel, president stephens.
i'm joe koppel, first a personal opinion as a district four homeowner and musician. i look forward to going to the treasure island music festival every year and the island has surprisingly good acoustics. i think it's very healthy for the social environment out there on the island. also i do represent the san francisco electrical construction industry. i have been intimately involved in the discussions about this project through the mayor's office with attendance in the solar power task force and wind power task force and we are often addressing issues for treasure island. and its importance. we are dealing with a very sizable plot which we don't usually encounter with a project in san francisco so we are really looking to utilize the land for wind power, technologies, and other renewable, clean sources of
energy like solar power and energy storage. really thrilled just to be a part of the project and really looking forward to building and installing our new treasure island, thanks. >> thank you. commissioners. nice to see you again. all bloom, i was original founder of treasure island use authority way back when and one of the founding members of the advisory board. i'm filling in somewhat inadequately for the maimingor role. our lawsuit against the navy helped ensured this island is on a proper track for the cleanup, and is well remediated in our campaign to correct the location of the ferry building helped lead -- ferry terminal at the site helped lead to its current location. we have been involved in this for some time. we are speaking to you today,
i'm speaking to you today to ask for a two-week extension of the review period. we just concluded very intensive review of the complicated environmental impact report, administrative process for the candlestick point treasure island project and equally sized complicated project and we need the additional time to focus our attention on this project now. the eirc, candlestick point received 60 days for public review. project was far less complicated from a transit and traffic issue point of view than this one is. we had multiple points of entry whereas here we have only three. so we really need the time to look at the changes in definition of form, structures, impacts on bridge traffic, environmental effects. the actual benefits of the sustain ability plan. scoping comments call for density, but did it call for this level of density? we don't think so.
we have concerns about this level of density. a primary principle of sustainable is carrying capacity. and this plan appears to exceed the island's carrying capacity. we have been engaged in the island's impacts on the environment since the navy controlled it. and we have been watching it grow. been very, very excited about it. we have invested tens of thousands of dollars in review and assistance on this project. and we would love to see it succeed. we want to see the jobs. we want to see the new vision for treasure island be implemented, but we want to see it properly sized for the carrying capacity island so we can make this project as successful as possible. so we are asking for an additional two weeks so we could do the review of the eir necessary to make that happen. as you know we do these things during christmas and thanksgiving and summer vacation. i just cut mine short to be here today. i would very much appreciate more time to be able to go ahead
and review this. all we are asking for is two weeks. thank you very much, commissioners. >> thank you. >> good morning. rosy masters, resident of ydi and board of directors for the ybi mutual benefit corporation and mutual development corporation. i, too, would like to request a two-week extension for review of the e.i.r. i would like to read a statement. although economic impacts are not evaluated in an e.i.r., the project should include an analysis of funding sources to determine if the project can remain revenue neutral. the analysis should review the relocation of residents if they couldn't afford the rates. prior to decisionmaking it is important to know that san francisco residents will be burdened by the cost and if affordable rules can be guaranteed for treasure island residents. it may limit the ability of low-income residents to remain. once the rates are established an analysis could be conducted for population and housing. until then, it is unknown if the
rates are acceptable and support middle to low-income residents. as we discussed today, the traffic analysis mitigation focuses on transit options not providing the services on treasure island that would reduce transportation. since public transportation is voluntary, it is difficult to determine the amount of traffic that would be reduced. but the majority of impacts are deemed significant and unavoidable. regional housing allocation should be reviewed to determine the percentage of affordable units and income levels. with a subset analysis on costs to those qualified forvu affordable housing application. thank you. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? if you'll just line up in the center aisle, i would appreciate it. >> good morning. my name is a pierian.
resident of ybi as j)s)rh member of the advisory board and also member of mutual@çu9;"7p= department. one of the concerns that came up and one of ouríx positions was e removal of nonindigenous plants. i notice that also some of the costs of removal and continued costs of maintaining removal of these nonindigenous plans are kind of brought up to their residents or added to the residents' cost. we brought up that this concern that 50% of the land is right now going to be owned by coast guard. we'd like to incorporate some of the costs to be shared also by the federal government and -- because it's removal of these plants would be continuously on us and half of the plants will
be located on the other side of the land, we need to incorporate some considerations as far as the costs so it won't be burdened on the residents continuously. thank you. >> thank you. is there additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. the board of commissioners would bring in -- >> commissioner? >> thank you for the presentation. i thought it was extremely thorough. and in particular very instructive in regards to the tide lands trust issue which is something we haven't had occasion to deal with in the past very often because it deals with submerged lands and i think it was very important that it mentions discretion over recreational uses which i think is an important feature subject to, of course, the authority of
the attorney general of the state, california state lands commission. also the fact that recreational uses should be regional in their scope and this is a factor. those are interesting things to look at because certainly there are many, many good things about this project and one of them is the fact that it creates a lot of public open space and particularly recreational uses which are something that we are in great need of in san francisco. i thought the analysis was very thorough. >> is my mike not on? it says mike on. couldn't hear me? should i repeat? >> i think so. >> i'm sorry. >> different system than we are used to. >> is it on now?
let me try to summarize this and in a shorter time the7o&econd time around. i thought it was particularly instructive the tide lands trust information in there. so it's because it's an issue regarding previously submerged lands that we don't have occasion to deal with as often. and i thought it was very important that it talked about the discretion that the tide lands trust has over uses, particularly recreational ones which are very important. and there was an emphasis on recreational uses that had a regioy0yl aspect to them. i think these are importantkp things and i'm glad that that f-+ñ$r the other parts of the report. i wanted to bring that up in particular because i think it's an area that we may not have been as familiar with as some of the other uses that are historically analyzed in environmental impact reports
/a-%h1ññi lacking>x in acreage for. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: for the record i would like to close i also sit on the treasure island, have since the beginning, and when i was appointed to the planning commission, the city attorney deemed that there was no conflict. and i do speakv and have been in strong support of the project. have watched it closely grow. and my comments today really are solely directed towards the e.i.r., the draft e.i.r. in front of us. let me first say that i'm very appreciative of the broad range of commentsñt%zrmji. with me it resonates quite well it asks for an additional two weeks of public comments. the issues are quite complicated. i do think while the two projects are not quite comparable, the extent of issues which do rise to the surface require more time.
in that direction. comments in writing. i have a number, but one thing i would like to put to public record today is the fact that the required?@ environmental security alternative is really not in this document. i'm surprised. the project is very strong and i think it should have dared to indeed address the environment. throughout the years of creating this project there has been a strong emphasis on green, on the truly green neighborhood of san francisco. the record shows during the scoping process, the documents pointed out the superior alternative would be one that would plan for enough defensity to support a robust public transit system, basic serving retail would minimize cars. i can quote our former director
of san francisco environment, bloom felled, very eloquently in this scope in comments indicates the e.i.r. to include a minimum impact alternative instead of less intensive development attorney. -- alternative. one of the challenges here is to balance high density with a decrease in cars. and not use parking as an argument for economic feasibility. i regret that and i strongly urge that the e.i.r. indeed look that with the challenge it pose. i think if we want to be truly a green neighborhood, we need to be able to go through the motions to examine how we can do that with an emphasis on robust transportation network. i want to leave it i think with that and i am in support of the number of comments which were made by people in the audience. >> thank you. commissioner.
olague. commissioner olague: i would support going beyond that because many people who are -- this isn't the only issue out there where this -- this isn't the only e. irkts r. that people are currently reviewing. we are also in the middle of the draft housing element review. which we extended to the end of the month. i think it would only be fair to extend the comment period on this project also. to allow for the commission as well as the public to look at it some more. i'll submit most of my comments in writing. the overwhelm thing that sort of struck me would be the -- an alternative -- i feel should be provided. it's dined of along the lines of what commissioner moore said. i'm focused on the parking piece that would look at an
alternative to what we have here which would see a reduction in parking, project alternative with a reduction in parking. so i would like to see something like that provided in the future. there's so much rhetoric around sustainability we have a.b. 32 and s.b. 375, mandates coming from the federal government as well as the state government that is directing i think local planning efforts to consider a reduction in carbon emissions and it seems to me that given that focus or that -- we should be looking at an alternative that would provide at least .5 or something, some reduction in parking. again i'll submit most of my comments in writing and i do support an extension.
>> thank you. board member chiang. >> thank you. i thank the member of the public for sharing your input with us today and i also want to thank members of the division of the planning for preparing the report. i will be submitting written comments but wanted to bring up two subjects that come up in my mind as i went through the e.i.r. the first one is on transportation. it appears all the topics and all the impact being analyzed i think the area of transportation really suffered most impact. out of this 60-some impact, stated in the report, over 35 or 38 are considered significant and unavoidable. and the mitigation measure suggested the one mitigation measure that was suggested for
-and avoidable impact for 38 of them happens to be the extend -- to extend transit service, ntr-2. and the report also stated that funding for extended time of service are not identified and secured and therefore its implementation must be considered at this time. i think we all understand that given this bunt -- budget of the city and budget of muni. but i wish that because of the totality of the impact and so many of them, i just wish that planning staff would consider ending more information as far as alternatives as to how we can or possibilities of how we can -- transit service can be extended. would it be a function of the soon to be newly created
treasure island transportation management agency which is supposed to be appointed by the board of supervisors? will it be one of the responsibility of the transportation management agency to oversee and guide us in the future in developing policies, mitigation measures, and how we can afford it. maybe we can also consider giving some options so that we as well as member of the public can look into -- can understand what are the possibilities because the impacts are quite immense. i really like to see some alternatives being suggested or options into how these mitigation measures can be funded. the second area i would like to bring up is public -- in the public service session. i have always been keen about asking about emergency services because of the unique location of the island and study across state and all of us know bay bridge is the only emergency access to and from san francisco
. i fear that that could be a little more adequate information in terms of how we mitigate the measures because certainly the increase in population over tenfold from what it is today between now and the build out of the project will increase demand in public services. i'm specifically referring to the analysis for fire department, we are looking at natural disasters, emergency medical services. the e.i.r. talk about the new fire station. i think that's something that needs to be done but i would like to have more adequate information in terms of mitigation measures because i think purely because of the population increase the impact is not insignificant or less significant. as member of the public have
mentioned there are--- in the earthquake zone. there are many natural disasters that can happen as the population increase, and i would like to see mitigation measures being suggested in terms of how we deal with these situations. >> thank you. board member elberling. >> thank you. first i do agree that an extension of the comment period would make sense. this clearly is a very complex, technical document and if the organizations that are most able to provide expert comment on it feel they need an additional two weeks to do that, i really think we would all benefit from that input. on the document, reading reminds me of when back in the late 1980's an organization i was a
member of that sued the city on the downtown plan settled with them and one of the settlement provisions was that e.i.r.'s should be easy to understand for lay people. as i was reading this document, i got the distinct impression that that vision has been lost. it's very much a document written by consultants and experts and engineers for other consultants and experts and engineers. our hope had been the summary would really embody the essence of the story about the project. and i don't find that adds to the story here. this project, of course, is creating a whole new neighborhood, actually the size of a small city. and a uniquely, physically isolated location in the bay, in the city of san francisco. that makes it very different